dmaz

I guess when some shirt designers reach a certain level, the rules don't apply to them anymore. Very disappointed Boots. I'd expect this from others, but not from you. Put some design and effort into the shirt for crying out loud. If you take the text out of this there is nothing.

auldzalt

Robert Heinlein's attempt to tie his disparate universes into one cosmology. The novel: The Number of the Beast. Not terribly bad. My understanding is that he wrote it to pay off some rather large medical bills. His follow up books were superior .

amschmidt

BootsBoots

dmaz wrote:I guess when some shirt designers reach a certain level, the rules don't apply to them anymore. Very disappointed Boots. I'd expect this from others, but not from you. Put some design and effort into the shirt for crying out loud. If you take the text out of this there is nothing.

dmaz! I would never not follow the rules! I'm a stickler for rules (in an almost unhealthy anal way).

The rule this time is just "no text only designs." The text can still be the main part of the design, there just has to be some graphical elements, too (it doesn't have to be complex imagery or anything, just some extra designy stuff). It's different from the "incidental text only" rule, which means if you remove the text you'd still have a solid design.

I think this rule is just in place to keep people from slapping a typeface on a shirt and calling it a day (based on past rejections, it seems pretty clear). There's a lot of "design" that can go into a design that's text-based. Sometimes putting them together is harder than it looks (OdysseyRoc always does a great job with graphic text).

I'm not saying that I've never phoned in a design, but I really did put a lot of effort into this one. It was hard to get the joke to "read" in the best possible way, hard to make the design look graphic even though it's just text, hard to make it look slightly futuristic without looking too cheesy, and stuff... Could this design have been better? I'm sure all of my work could be better, this one included, but not for lack of effort (this time). Oh! I didn't put much effort into this one. It was a nice day, and I really wanted to finish it so I could go to the park. I will admit it. That's the only one I can think of off the top of my head, though.

I do appreciate you bringing your rule-following hammer down, though! It irks me to no end when I see someone trying to skirt the rules, so carry on (my wayward son?)!

fishbiscuit5

There's a lot of "design" that can go into a design that's text-based. Sometimes putting them together is harder than it looks (OdysseyRoc always does a great job with graphic text).

I just want to second this sentiment. It takes me longer to select and design for text than it does to illustrate. I put so much thought into the type used and the best layout for it. Readability and wearability is a huge factor when you design with text. Searching for just the right type sometimes takes much longer than you would think. It may look simplistic, but that's intentional. And I agree, OdysseyRoc is great at text! Boots is ok at it too. ;)

odysseyroc

BootsBoots wrote:dmaz! I would never not follow the rules! I'm a stickler for rules (in an almost unhealthy anal way).

The rule this time is just "no text only designs." The text can still be the main part of the design, there just has to be some graphical elements, too (it doesn't have to be complex imagery or anything, just some extra designy stuff). It's different from the "incidental text only" rule, which means if you remove the text you'd still have a solid design.

I think this rule is just in place to keep people from slapping a typeface on a shirt and calling it a day (based on past rejections, it seems pretty clear). There's a lot of "design" that can go into a design that's text-based. Sometimes putting them together is harder than it looks (OdysseyRoc always does a great job with graphic text).

I'm not saying that I've never phoned in a design, but I really did put a lot of effort into this one. It was hard to get the joke to "read" in the best possible way, hard to make the design look graphic even though it's just text, hard to make it look slightly futuristic without looking too cheesy, and stuff... Could this design have been better? I'm sure all of my work could be better, this one included, but not for lack of effort (this time). Oh! I didn't put much effort into this one. It was a nice day, and I really wanted to finish it so I could go to the park. I will admit it. That's the only one I can think of off the top of my head, though.

I do appreciate you bringing your rule-following hammer down, though! It irks me to no end when I see someone trying to skirt the rules, so carry on (my wayward son?)!

Great post, Jamie! there's a lot more that goes into GOOD graphic design than most people realize.

lotsofgoats

taternuggets wrote:There are a few artists I will normally vote for (unless I hate their entry) because of the comradery we have developed at woot. But it certainly isn't a sure thing.

See, this is the part that sucks. Firstly for other artists who have the same concerns as new artists (who I do hope will stay), and secondly for woot. That button says "I'd want one" for a reason. More clearly, it means "I'd buy one". If you're voting shirts into the fog and then not buying them when they print, that's pretty crappy.

lotsofgoats

Also in regards to the above conversation, it's irrelevant how much design goes into text when there's a "no text only" rule. We can all appreciate how difficult a good graphic design, but text is still text.

woot does seem to be as strictly "no text only" as they are "no cats allowed" though, so I wouldn't worry about the rejectionator too much.

taternuggets

lotsofgoats wrote:See, this is the part that sucks. Firstly for other artists who have the same concerns as new artists (who I do hope will stay), and secondly for woot. That button says "I'd want one" for a reason. More clearly, it means "I'd buy one". If you're voting shirts into the fog and then not buying them when they print, that's pretty crappy.

I don't know where you got the idea that I vote for shirts I wouldn't want. I also don't know why you would think "I'd want one" is a commitment to buy one. I might want ten shirts, but if they all printed, I wouldn't be able to buy them all. You basically missed the point of what I was saying perhaps because of the inarticulate way I explained it. I was three sheets to the wind when I wrote that. The bottom line is a popular artist that often prints is going to have more trouble getting a vote out of me than a new artist that doesn't spend every derby in the fog. If the artist is a friend of mine, they might still get the vote even though they are my competition.

kharmazero

j5

tomspc wrote:My experience in here is that ALL of the rules are bendable and breakable. Woot chooses who can get away with it and who can't. Watch closely and you'll see a trend.

Someone misunderstanding the rules does not make someone else's design in violation of them.
Designs with a high probability of printing do get a little leeway, but then so do designs with a very low probability of printing. The trend I see is Friday at 3PM CST rejectionator first pass, then Monday around noon, then maybe Tuesday as needed. Some things get missed and some things get a pass, but that's the only trend I see.
There isn't really a clique, other than the general "play nice, don't be critical of other designers, Woot or the process, don't complain about injustice (perceived or real)".

lotsofgoats

taternuggets wrote:I also don't know why you would think "I'd want one" is a commitment to buy one.

That has something to do with the fact that this is a site that sells the winning shirt designs. It's not a contract, no, but you'd have a hard time convincing me that a vote for a winner followed up by no purchase was one submitted with integrity.

Woot.com is operated by Woot Services LLC.
Products on Woot.com are sold by Woot, Inc., other than items on Wine.Woot which are sold by the seller specified on the product detail page.
Product narratives are for entertainment purposes and frequently employ
literary point of view;
the narratives do not express Woot's editorial opinion.
Aside from literary abuse, your use of this site also subjects you to Woot's
terms of use
and
privacy policy.
Woot may designate a user comment as a Quality Post, but that doesn't mean we agree with or guarantee anything said or linked to in that post.